Ah yes, the backers will pay Playtonic to the end, when Shovel Knight couldn't pay Yacht Club Games to the end of development despite their amazing sucess(did they do more than YK? can't remember). Surely, the game just isn't for the masses.

Seriously, I love BK, I love even more BT, I tolerate Nuts and Bolts, but time passes. Cynism and british humor was funny and interesting then but nowadays it's not new and is reaching lolrandom levels of overdone. Doesn't mean you have to ditch it, but update it. From the reviews and Toybox it doesn't seem like they did that. And if the rest of the game suddenly starts pissing new fans off, that's only more noticeable.

To me it just sounds like Playtonic needs to issue a performance patch for the console versions, and pronto. Other than that the game seems to be everything it set out to be. It never pretended to be anything other than a nostalgic throwback to a retro gameplay style. Is a nostalgic throwback what the 3D platformer genre needs in order to regain widespread appeal? Apparently not, but that doesn't mean there aren't lots of people who wanted exactly the kind of game that Yooka-Laylee is.

That said, I feel like most of Playtonic's problems lately are caused by Team 17. Team 17 are the ones who handled PR (and did so very terribly during the JonTron incident) and Team 17 handled the console ports. Playtonic needs to ditch Team 17, asap.

I tried the Toybox+ demo. The mechanics definitely feel pretty good, but my laptop can't keep a stable 60 FPS (probably could if I made the settings lower but I don't want bad resolution). Guess I'll have to wait until the PS4 version gets patched.

Yeah, a 73 isn't bad at all? It's certainly not great, but it's definitely not bad either. It's a mediocre-ish score more than anything from what it seems.

Plus, this game was literally a love song to fans of Banjo-Kazooie/Tooie, and a lot of the reviews complain about things that Rare's always been known for in their games.
(i.e Random mini-games and similar things)

I'll admit some of these things are outdated, but it is what the fans wanted and expected out of a Banjo successor.
So I didn't really expect it to be praised or anything because it was made specifically to appeal to the people that wanted a new Banjo-Kazooie-like game.

It's what we wanted, so I don't really see the problem? My only real complaints so far from what I've seen are the camera and performance issues on consoles.
Team 17 handled the console ports, so the blame falls on them and not Playtonic for the performance problems. It'll probably be patched in the near future anyways.

I'm quite confident that I'm going to have a blast with the game, so I'm still looking forward to it.
That said, I am going to wait it out a bit until they (hopefully) patch and fix the performance issues with the console versions. (Or at least PS4)

---A sword wields no strength unless the hand that holds it has courage.

tbh the whole "it's made for the fans" argument isn't that great of a reason why a game should underperform. in my honest opinion games shouldn't aim to be made for on group of individuals who are nostalgic for bad gameplay. yooka-laylee is a successor to the bear and bird game don't get me wrong but just because it is doesn't mean it can improve and update the gameplay to make it smoother and overall more enjoyable. the thing about games made on the 90's is that they were limited to what they had at the time while yooka-laylee seems to have camera issues which is quite silly. but look at shovel knight that game was made for old snes lovers yet just about anybody in this day and age can pick the game up and enjoy it without ever touching a snes. and that's what a game like yooka-laylee should do. allow anybody to pick up and play. not just anybody can just pick up banjo and enjoy it fully because they aren't just use to the style of gameplay that it has. if banjo was made in the 2010's then it would be called shovelware or a hidden gem but back then it would be "game of the year." but games that were excellent in ur childhood doesn't mean that people in their childhood these days would enjoy it as well. sure there are kids who do enjoy old 64 games but quite a few of them don't and I feel like yooka-laylee should have tried to captivate new audiences. games should heading forward not backwards.

I didn't say that I was okay with the camera or performance issues, though? I said quite the opposite, actually.

I should've clarified that I don't think that they should've directed it only at fans of Kazooie/Tooie, and that I agree that they should've made it appeal to all audiences.
I was just saying that if you enjoyed Kazooie/Tooie, you'll probably enjoy this. I can't guarantee that, though, obviously.

And yeah, they definitely should've updated the gameplay a bit because being a successor shouldn't equal having the same problems years later.

---A sword wields no strength unless the hand that holds it has courage.

So much of the appeal of BT was that it improved on the previous game(even if the level design suffered), instead of just being more of the same. New abilities, new puzzles, formal boss battles,connected worlds, etc. Other than the expanding worlds and Pagie shards(which feel like padding), not much else was given to the basics of BK.

Gee, why am I not surprised a game staring a non-human character gets a medium score? This is why I stopped watching this game because I didn't want to see something like THIS happen to a game I was looking forward to. I mean, you can argue the reviews aren't THAT bad, but it's still a blow to my mood right now.

Gee, why am I not surprised a game staring a non-human character gets a medium score? This is why I stopped watching this game because I didn't want to see something like THIS happen to a game I was looking forward to. I mean, you can argue the reviews aren't THAT bad, but it's still a blow to my mood right now.

Gee, why am I not surprised a game staring a non-human character gets a medium score? This is why I stopped watching this game because I didn't want to see something like THIS happen to a game I was looking forward to. I mean, you can argue the reviews aren't THAT bad, but it's still a blow to my mood right now.

A Hat in Time definately has more chances but it's also a much smaller game(I think?).

A Hat in Time has staring a human going for it.

I think you're a bit too paranoid.

I feel like I have a reason to be. Everything I look forward to blows up in my face now-adays and it's hard for me to get excited for stuff anymore. Again, the game hasn't really gotten BAD reviews, just okay/good but not amazing type reviews, but it still makes me feel bad that a game staring a non-human doesn't get the praise I was hoping for, as usual.

Gee, why am I not surprised a game staring a non-human character gets a medium score? This is why I stopped watching this game because I didn't want to see something like THIS happen to a game I was looking forward to. I mean, you can argue the reviews aren't THAT bad, but it's still a blow to my mood right now.

A Hat in Time has staring a human going for it.

I think you're a bit too paranoid.

I feel like I have a reason to be. Everything I look forward to blows up in my face now-adays and it's hard for me to get excited for stuff anymore.

No, not that, the "everyone hates games with no humans" thing. I just think it's quite paranoid, because no one would say something is bad because there's no humans.

I feel like I have a reason to be. Everything I look forward to blows up in my face now-adays and it's hard for me to get excited for stuff anymore.

No, not that, the "everyone hates games with no humans" thing. I just think it's quite paranoid, because no one would say something is bad because there's no humans.

Trust me, there are rabid anti-furries out there who will pitch a fit and give a bad review to a game based on it's main character's species, though they usually sugarcoat reviews to hide that being their sole reason for the low score.

I feel like I have a reason to be. Everything I look forward to blows up in my face now-adays and it's hard for me to get excited for stuff anymore.

No, not that, the "everyone hates games with no humans" thing. I just think it's quite paranoid, because no one would say something is bad because there's no humans.

Trust me, there are rabid anti-furries out there who will pitch a fit and give a bad review to a game based on it's main character's species, though they usually sugarcoat reviews to hide that being their sole reason for the low score.

B-B-But Yooka can't even be classified as a furry. He's a scalie... I think that's the name.

Mugo, do you think the fact that non-humans are the main characters contributes to the games negatime reviews?

At this point, I honestly do.

You may be wondering if it really is THAT big of a deal that the main star isn't human, let me just say: Yes it is. IMO, a likeable character can make the game itself more likeable, and I am honestly at the point in my life where I am so misanthropic that I have a hard time accepting humans as goodguys at all anymore. People think it's entirely environmental, that my disdain for my own species has solely to do with animals, when in fact it stems FAR beyond that. Watching species go extinct and humans "helping" animals by hunting more and more of the animals that are already in such low numbers doesn't help my opinion, but neither does watching people get bullied and others only making it WORSE for the victims, not to mention living in a war-mongering country right now doesn't help either. So, yeah, game staring a human DOES make it less fun for me, especially since the majority of human staring games now a days have no sense of color or whimsy, and usually treat humans as the absolute good (only creature capable of good: I DESPISE this concept). Every now and then a Borderlands or Sunset Riders, two fairly whimsical games that come to mind staring humans, will come along and break up the monotony, and sometimes even games with non-human goodguys as well as humans (like Mass Effect), but ultimately what I REALLY want are games that don't star the very thing I don't want to play as: humans.

That's one of the reasons I love Skylanders so much: There are so many things to choose from as far as playables go. Sure, there are a few humans, but then there's dragons, monsters, anthros, quadrupeds, everything I could ask for save the token fat character (jk, sorta). Even with Skylanders, though, it's not so much the game itself, but the business practice of "One a year" that ultimately killed Guitar Hero and did more-or-less the same with this game. You may think I'm being picky with Yooka-Laylee in that "Didn't get rave reviews, so it sucks," and yes, the reviews have been more or less decent, but at the same time a lot of us, including myself, were hoping for so much better, and to see this once again happen to an anthro game makes me sad.

It doesn't help that, as far as non-human games go, it's pretty slim-pickin's out there. Most of the ones that get attention end up outright sucking or, in Yooka-Laylee's case, under-preforming. Even the ones that don't are usually terrible. Every once in a while a good anthro game will get rave reviews, but that feels like it only happens once or twice a year, and THAT is if you're lucky. Some years don't produce ANY good anthro/non-human staring games. So yeah, Yooka-Laylee may still be a pretty good game, but it's reviews do make me sad.

Have you seen ANYONE IN ANY OF THE NEGATIVE REVIEWS COMPLAIN AT ALL ABOUT HOW THE MAIN CHARACTERS ARE ANIMALS? I hugely doubt it. The fact that they're animals has absolutely nothing to do with the negative reviews. If that was the case, why do some of the most popular animated films feature animals as the main characters? Kung Fu Panda, Zootopia, How to Train Your Dragon, Sing, Secret Life of Pets, Madagascar, Jungle Book, Lion King, Storks. If humans are supposededly absolute good and animals are ****ing trash, why would these movies be so beloved? If anything these movies with humans in place of the animals would have been much less successful. I know this is a vidya game and not a movie, but the case is similar and can go into your complaint.

When a game featuring a human character comes out, they're not human because "OH HUMANS ARE ABSOLUTE GOOD, **** ALL OTHER CREATURES, **** THEM ALL!" it's because its the most logical choice. It's not like if you have a main bipedal animal character and people will think "Oh no, why isn't he human? This is wrong! HUMANS ARE THE ONLY CREATURES TO DO GOOD!" We, know for a fact. that animals in real life can do good. We don't ignore that in fact its often celebrated when a dog saves his human from some danger,or even just shows his love for his human

I'm not even sure if my above argument made much sense, because I'm hastily typing this up out of anger. Yooka being a chameleon and Laylee being a bat have nothing to do with the games faults and mixed reviews.

In fact, if people were given the option of the making Yooka Laylee (Or any video game/movie character) animals or human, I think a big majority would choose animal because it would be seen as cooler and more fun.

---When ever you get scared or nervous about something, you gotta do your best to keep on smiling and Go Beyond Plus Ultra!

On topic, Jontron's voice role will be patched out, but some people got their hands in the game early and found him before the patch rolls. I'll post a link in an hour or so when I can if no one does it first.

On topic, Jontron's voice role will be patched out, but some people got their hands in the game early and found him before the patch rolls. I'll post a link in an hour or so when I can if no one does it first.

Because when you say you don't want immigrants mixing up the gene pool you just nuked half of your fanbase and then some. I'm not even sure if I'll keep watching him, it's hard to separate creation from creator when his face is on all the time.

ololol playtonic must feel embarrassed when they see that nuts & bolts currently has a higher metascore than yooka laylee olololol

In its defense, Nuts & Bolts is not a bad game, it's just that people expected it to be a Banjo Threeie and threw a fit when it wasn't.

I also like how people act like what I said about non-human bias doesn't have truth to it, as well as assuming critics are just going to blatantly say "it sucks because it doesn't star a human." ...I also found it funny that I was pretty much the only person who saw bad reviews coming.

On topic, Jontron's voice role will be patched out, but some people got their hands in the game early and found him before the patch rolls. I'll post a link in an hour or so when I can if no one does it first.

*video here*

__________________________

Okay, now I could really care less that it's patched out. That is not an endearing voice grunt. It hurts my ears. <.<

I also like how people act like what I said about non-human bias doesn't have truth to it, as well as assuming critics are just going to blatantly say "it sucks because it doesn't star a human." ...I also found it funny that I was pretty much the only person who saw bad reviews coming.

There's absolutely no truth to it, though? We've even given you examples of games with non-human characters that've done well.

The closest thing you'd get to any of that is how some people prefer playing as humans because it's more relatable for them.
But most people really don't care as long as the game is good, which Yooka-Laylee is and isn't for some people.

It's time to take the tinfoil hat off and retire it, my friend, and accept that Yooka-Laylee isn't anything ground-breaking.

---A sword wields no strength unless the hand that holds it has courage.